marginally subversive

causality is one complex business…

… that this blog post is NOT going to do the topic justice. but i will trudge on nonetheless.

just because two things are moving together doesn’t mean they are causing each other

 

 

you can’t conclude that something causes something unless you have (1) thoroughly reviewed previously written research, (2) looked at alternative reasons why the two may be – and may not be causal, and (3) checked with common-sense.  a high “r-coefficient” or a high “r-squared” doesn’t mean anything.

 

 

if you don’t have an explanation why would A cause B – and why not something else (say, another variable C), and why not the other way around – i.e., B causes A – chances are the “causal relationship” is spurious.

 

***

once again, there’d be remarks that this is too academic. 

but it isn’t.

it’s simple, common-sense.

who is afraid of the big bad wolf called complexity?

i am quite surprised by people who always want and demand "simple solutions".

i get it:  there are merits to the elevator pitch.  that we all are time-poor.  that we don't have time to read reams and tons of documents.  that "simple is beautiful".

but sometimes, simple is just simply not enough.

we live in a complex world.  to deny that is to deny what is real.

the truth is - to get to a SIMPLE SOLUTION we will have to go through a myriad - perhaps infinite number - of potential solutions.

but no: we want quick-fix solutions to problems:

sales are going down - let's do a promotion.
awareness is nil - let's spend money.
people are not clicking through our ads - let's bombard them even more.
products aren't flying off the shelves - let's fire the ad people, the promo people, the graphic designer.
people are not talking about us online - let's pay bloggers.
people are bashing our brands - delete their comments.
people think our products are expensive - let's cut prices.
stock prices have been stagnant for 4 weeks - let's fire the ceo.
we're the market leader - let's kill the smaller players.

we want simple solutions to problems that are very complex.

 

well.

life is not simple.

business is not simple.

marketing is not simple.

people are not simple.

how we think isn't simple.

how we choose isn't simple.

why then should we expect that the solutions ought to be simple?

 

complex problems, complex scenarios, complex decision-points require due diligence, rigor, structure.  to look for shortcuts for the sake of "simplicity" is simply laziness. sure, communicate the solution the simplest way possible - BUT never sacrifice the process that goes on underneath the search for that solution.

 

===============================

 

thanks to michael.heiss at Flickr.com for the photo above.

Rereading Socrates: Pretensions, Slander, and Insecurities

I have been rereading Socrates' Apologia - a required reading back when I was in the university.  The Apologia (or the Apology) is written by Plato in behalf of Socrates.  It covers Socrates' defense of himself before he was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock, a kind of poison.

From Wikipedia:

The Apology of Socrates is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" (24b). "Apology" here has its earlier meaning (now usually expressed by the word "apologia") of speaking in defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Greek απολογία).

Rereading it with new perspectives - older, perhaps a little (just a wee bit) wiser from that 17year-old me - has given me new thoughts:  The reason why Socrates was sentenced to death is because others around him could not accept the fact that they are not as wise as they thought themselves to be.

They were a pretentious lot who have stopped asking questions.  They believe that they have all the answers - and that everything that needed to be learned, they knew.

This belief - call it self-confidence, "kabibohan", self-belief - was the ultimate in their lives: it is the pillar on which their whole concept of their own self is built. 

And Socrates came and debunked the very pillar of their lives.

And he came with proof: through questions and answers, he uncovered the very weakness of the people's assumptions about themselves on how wise, good, intelligent they are.

He didn't necessarily show them they were useless - he just showed them that what they have is not everything there is to have.

But I guess, that too simply was too deep and profound for his accusers.

=========

Once in a while, someone comes into our lives to tell us that the things we know are not enough.  That there is more to learn.  And that there is more to consider than just the formulaic, textbook considerations of the past.

It is disruptive.  It truly is.

But it also opens up opportunities to improve.

That is, if one accepts it and does not rebel against the realization that there is more.

But sometimes, that person is seen too much of a distraction, a divisive factor, a gadfly, a subversive, a hard-headed arse who needs to be eliminated by all costs...

All because that person simply showed - and proved - that what one knows now is not enough and that there is more to learn if only one would listen.

How we react to that person who shows us our inadequacies is a measure of our own openness to learning more, of wanting to be more.

=========

What I found in my 15 years of working is that the people who are most unwilling to admit their inadequacies and be open to new things are the ones who are most insecure.

They are the ones who would slander other people and defame them to get what they want, create an "aura" and "facade" of supposed kindness, and feign innocence. 

They sow seeds of distrust within a team, create a "reputation" that they are the glue that holds the team together, and name others as "divisive" and "unprofessional".

One could only pity them.

In the same way that Socrates may have felt pity towards his accusers.

=========

The jury will vote. 
Someone will drink the hemlock.
Someone will take the blame.
Someone will walk away with the labels "divisive", "subversive", "hardheaded", "inconsiderate", and "ineffective" attached to his name. 
All because the jury had been fooled by facades and pretensions of one accuser who believes herself to be "enough", "mature enough", "wise enough", and "good enough".

What a pitiful state for a human being.
Not for the accused - but for the accuser.

One could only hope that she be given a long, interesting life.

=========

learning how to fall

Why is it that we are so enamored by 'learning how to fall'?

At least that's the impression I got from some of the things that I have been observing.

When one learns surfing, the first thing they teach is "how to fall off the board safely".

In judo, it's also the same thing: how to fall and break it so you won't break a bone.

In whitewater rafting, the first lesson is: how to get back onto the boat when it turns over.

In volleyball: how to fall on that special mat, roll, and get out of the other players' way.

Then this thing on "golden parachutes" that CEOs get before they take on the role.

It's as if we're so obsessed with failing - that we have to prepare for it from day one. 

Why not teach "the beauty of the waves - and being underneath them"?

Or the beauty of using another's anger and force to one's own advantage?

Or the beauty of jumping high, doing a spike, or blocking an opponent's deadly smash?

Or the beauty of leading a team of people - who are not bound by blood but (hopefully) by vision - to create the best organizations.

Surely, these are far better motivators than failure.

Or are they?

I have never learned how to fall.

Though I wouldn't call myself risk-averse, I also wouldn't call myself riskophilic.

I just never had learned how to fall.

And that is why sometimes, when I fall, I fall hard.

Is it because I see the beauty of the possibilities that tend to overshadow the possibilities of failure?

Is it because I see the "good" in people more than the possibility of them being "bad"?

I have had my shares of failures.  And of 'bad' people.

And still.  I have never learned how to fall.

And right now, I am not sure if I want to learn that.

social media and impressions

A friend of mine almost gave me a heart attack: He said he was preparing a media plan using facebook and was buying 1'000'000 geo-targeted impressions for his campaign.

He went on and said that he's creating - as an additional tactic - a facebook page for the brand with lots of branding elements, which he would then ask (read: pay) bloggers to write about using a blog-writers' network to create "buzz" and "word of mouth".

And oh, to top it all off, twitter will be used to get people to know about the brand more.

Guess why I almost had a heart attack.

(And - in reference to an earlier post - someone actually dared to call me "not digital enough"?  Smug.)

[PS.  I am actually a nice person - at least I think so, and people in the office who have not worked with me think so.  But like normal people, I rant.  And when I rant, I rant.  I don't approximate NN Taleb's wit and subtly sarcastic (yet still stinging) ways - but sometimes, I wish I did. :D]

traditional media

From Seth Godin:

Traditional advertising is inherently selfish. It interrupts in order to generate money (part of which pays for more interruptions). That approach doesn't work at a cocktail party, or at a funeral or in a social network.

Traditional approaches to advertising make brand managers ask of the medium "What can you do for me?"

And this is where most awareness-interest-desire-action and other similar models fail in the new ad environment that we are in.

Non-traditional, new approaches to advertising compel brand managers to ask themselves "What can I do to make this medium more relevant to its innate audiences?  How can I make myself more relevant to my audiences using this medium whilst respecting its innate position amongst audiences?"

---

A lot of people equate the traditional approach with TV, radio, press, and magazines.  And a lot of people equate the non-traditional approach with all things digital - from internet advertising to SNS/social web advertising to search to digital content management.

However, I disagree with this 'delineation'.

One can have a traditional approach even whilst using a digital medium.  And similarly, one can have a non-traditional approach with non-digital, traditional media.

It is the thinking that needs to change - not the media that are being used.

---

The distinction between digital planning and non-digital planning is not the same as the distinction between traditional and non-traditional planning.

Traditional planning can happen on either digital OR non-digital media.  And the same is true of non-traditional planning.

What really matters is the thinking.

And as Seth Godin says: Traditional advertising thinking is inherently selfish. 

Non-traditional advertising - the new way of thinking that could be implemented on both digital and non-digital media channels - is empowering.

And no: non-traditional advertising is NOT solely a property of digital advertising.

After all - when all is said and done - it is still about reaching business, marketing, and communication objectives that matter.

Not whether digital or non-digital media are used.

Andrew Lahde's Towel on the Floor

This has got to be one of the best resignation letters I have ever read.  I  don’t know Andrew Lahde - unfortunately.  Apart from the things that have been written of him (he of the magnificent returns, he of the Lahde Capital phenomenon).  But some parts of his letters resonate with me. 

Some, I don't agree with.  Some, I strongly agree.

Here's his 'good-riddance, f-ing goodbye y'all' letter...

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.  (Emphasis mine.)

…

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life — where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management — with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lest we start thinking of Lahde as a saint - and I believe he has no intention of being one - here's one commenter, Dude,who posted an 'open response' to Lahde at Portfolio.Com:

Way to go, Andrew. It's good to see some honesty. What you didn't say is that you realized that you flipped ten heads in a row and you were smart enough not to try again. I'll share a reefer with you any day, even if I am one of those Ivy League rich boys who took a few of your best. Surely you understand delta hedging. We didn't lose as much as you think since we hedge everything but a "transaction spread." It's the widows and orphans that funded your riches, not us.

               

The Problem with Data... is not the Data

I had an interesting conversation a few days' back with a former colleague about the need for measurement - and how we now have tons and tons of data.  Research has become cheap - whether we like it or not, online-facilitated research is here to stay.  And in some countries, online panels have become representative of most of the samples that we are trying to survey that - at least from this perspective - online research is a valid alternative to more expensive, more time-consuming offline research.

Access to data has also become very cheap.  Google Analytics has paved the way to "cheaply (if not freely) monitoring the movements of your site's audiences" and make incremental (or significant) improvements on one's website as and when the data come in.

But the question remains:  Why are people still frustrated with data?

Because data doesn't mean anything until one sits down and weaves a story out of them.

I think that's as simplistic as it could get - but I honestly think that that is the problem:  we have lots of data, lots of information, lots of numbers, lots of "phenomena" and "variables" to take into account - that we lose track of why we had the data in the first place.

We need to be more hypothesis-led with all the amount of data that we have.  The quicker we develop - and prove/disprove - hypotheses, the more effective we are.

And this can only happen with a deep understanding of a business.

Unfortunately, that is where some consultants fail, I think. 

Consultants do bring value to the table - no question about that.  Their vast and wide experience-base makes them great at what they do since "wheel reinvention" doesn't have to take place. 

But sometimes, some invention is necessary.  Some novel way to look at, visualize, analyze data needs to be considered - and some consultants are in themselves violating what they are advising their clients: look at things differently by refusing to look at their own data and questions differently.

What's the problem?  It's not the absence of data.  (In fact, it may well be that the easy access to data is part of the problem.)

The problem is, in spite of all the data that we now have, we still have people who are not curious or diligent enough to let the numbers speak their story.